Comments on: Morgan Stanley sells off entire NYT stake

By: b74c584980c272e5a531

b74c584980c272e5a531 — Sat, 27 Oct 2007 15:10:35 +0000

b74c584980c272e5a531…

b74c584980c2…

By: Right Voices » Blog Archive » Morgan Stanley Sells Entire New York Times Stake

Thu, 18 Oct 2007 00:09:24 +0000

[...] Hot Air : The battle between Morgan Stanley’s managing director and the Sulzbergers has been going on for months now, but this move might be the one that causes the most ripple effects. Other institutional stockholders may follow Morgan Stanley’s lead, the Sulzbergers may even have to consider taking the Times private. The Times’ stock has been on a consistent downward slide for months. [...]

By: Wade

Wade — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 23:21:16 +0000

The market is an uncompassionate judge of the worth of a company.

PRCalDude on October 17, 2007 at 3:13 PM

Huh?

By: eanax

eanax — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 23:10:41 +0000

Morgan Stanley sells off entire NYT stake

Thank God.

By: TheBigOldDog

TheBigOldDog — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 23:05:23 +0000

The Sulzbergers may even have to consider taking the Times private.

Um, that’s the plan. That’s why they’ve been driving the stock price down and using shareholder money (income from operations) to buy back shares on the cheap. They’ve been headed down this road for a while now. I wouldn’t be shocked to learn the Times was the buyer of the block. It’s what I’d do. It gives me a nice big block at a cheap price plus removes a watchdog making it easier to drive the price down further – dry up all the outstanding shares and do a tender offer for what little shares remain outstanding…

By: eon

eon — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 22:45:12 +0000

Labamigo on October 17, 2007 at 5:44 PM

True, but any major stock that has slid 65% down in the last decade is about one notch above a junk bond. The most likely buyer(s) would be the Sulzberger family, to keep control of NYT, Inc., and incidentally to keep anyone from being in position to call for “Pinch” to either resign or get canned.

I’d like to suggest a new motto for the Gray Lady’s masthead, since “All The News That’s Fit To Print” doesn’t cut it anymore;

The New York Times

Circling The Drain But In Denial

cheers

eon

By: Labamigo

Labamigo — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:44:11 +0000

Hey newsflash….

If someone sells stock that means . . someone else buys it.

Its not as if this stock was just tossed in the ash can.

By: Blog-o-Fascists

Blog-o-Fascists — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:30:05 +0000

In A Word: Underperforming…

Riehl World View

Keep in mind the New York Times sold off its television holdings to pay off debt some years back. Meanwhile, News Corp bought the Wall Street Journal.

With word of Morgan Stanley selling off its New York Times stock holdings, roughly…

By: Bill C

Bill C — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:00:05 +0000

For those interested, reversing the numbers gives the total value of the B shares = $2,440,000,000.

By: libertarianuberalles

libertarianuberalles — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 20:59:13 +0000

Recent analysis estimated that the market value of the company is equal to the value of the new headquarters and some remaining broadcast pieces (or maybe it was about.com). The entire news operation is given 0 to negative value by the market, more so with recent drops.

Couldn’t happen to a better bunch of stockholders! The family and optioned staff will be REALLY upset.

By: JiangxiDad

JiangxiDad — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 20:20:39 +0000

Powerline is reporting on the new blog of the Times Editorial Board.

By: shooter

shooter — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 20:06:34 +0000

…months? In early 2003 their stock was nearly 50 bucks….now thats a slide and I don’t mean a fun slide at the park either.
.
NYT is down nearly 65% in four + Years.
.
And they sill don’t get it.
.
whats the saying about fools and money?

By: JiangxiDad

JiangxiDad — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 20:04:07 +0000

Murdoch's plans to take on the NY Times

By: robo

robo — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 20:02:19 +0000

to quote that brave patriot Paul Simon….

Slip, Slidin’ away…..Slip Slidin’ away

The nearer your destination, (all the bs the times has pulled) the more you keep slip slidin’ away….

By: Clark1

Clark1 — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 19:53:10 +0000

It should be sad to see the demise of quality reporting, especially in the international arena. But the NYT has become so reflexively anti-American, opposing any gov’t program to twart terrorism, willing to expose (and hence undermine) ongoing anti-terror operations, and actively seeking to undermine support for the war, that I can’t help being glad to see them slide further.

By: JiangxiDad

JiangxiDad — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 19:52:51 +0000

The New York Post will take up the slack. Times stays international, the Post covers the homefront in a conservative fashion.

Murdoch’s got plans for the WSJ. Think it will take up any slack, not the POST. Not that I think there will be slack specifically because of this sale. Somebody bought that stock. Sounds to me like the Times and Sulzbergers get a reprieve, if temporarily. How long can the new minority shareholder remain happy paying the Sulzbergers the outsized dividend they’re accustomed to? Can’t wait to find out who it is, or what group.

By: d1carter

d1carter — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 19:49:33 +0000

I just wonder who bought the stock?

By: MirCat

MirCat — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 19:48:39 +0000

The person declined to be identified because Morgan Stanley hasn’t made the sale public yet. Traders with knowledge of the transaction said Merrill Lynch & Co. sold New York Times stock worth $183 million in a block trade.

Rupert Murdoch

Rove you MB

- The Cat

By: Theworldisnotenough

Theworldisnotenough — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 19:47:48 +0000

but in all my years of reading celebrations of the Times’s financial woes, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a forecast of what it’s likely to mean for the paper’s coverage.

The New York Post will take up the slack. Times stays international, the Post covers the homefront in a conservative fashion.

By: LakeRuins

LakeRuins — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 19:27:25 +0000

I just no longer have any confidence in any of the reporting contained on the pages of the NYT, even if they do have foreign journalists. It seems their staff has been so throughly infilitrated with folks pushing an agenda one way or the other that there is absolutely no journalistic integrity left.
When they lost the trust of their readers that was the begining of this downward slide. It would be hard if not impossible to gain back.
You want to see their subscription numbers take a nose dive? Have every other news bureau that subscribes to them cancel. If other news readers wouldn’t hold up a copy of the rag every morning pointing out some story, or lack of story I am afraid they would be left with few real subscribers.

By: Riehl World View

Riehl World View — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 19:23:43 +0000

In A Word: Underperforming…

With word of Morgan Stanley selling off its New York Times stock holdings, roughly 7 percent of available stock, I thought it might be fun to look at a five year average of the Times versus the indexes, as well…

By: petefrt

petefrt — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 19:22:40 +0000

Hey, Pinch, that’s capitalism’s a bitch, isn’t it!

By: petefrt

petefrt — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 19:21:29 +0000

Surely $Soros$ is in the wings for a bailout, if ever he’s needed.

My hope is NYT won’t be able to add enough profit centers within the new media to sustain itself or subsidize its dinosaur newspaper… and it will continue to die through irrelevance, if not obsolescence.

By: PRCalDude

PRCalDude — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 19:13:32 +0000

The Times’ stock has been on a consistent downward slide for months.

The market is an uncompassionate judge of the worth of a company.

By: mojo

mojo — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 19:11:30 +0000

Watch the NYT complain about the leak.

They have NO shame.